!! spellx done
93   Here's Chloroacetophenone
     In Your Eye; You Better Blink
     The Washington Post  Saturday, April 13, 1968

     Chemical mace is a trademark product of the General Ordnance
Equipment Corp. of Pittsburgh.  The verb "to mace" is, however, 
rapidly becoming part of common language.

     According to several writers, the manufacturer has been reticent
about discussing the formula for Mace.  If so, this must be mainly to
discourage competition for sales. The package label refers to 
phenylmethylchloroketone, a jargonized version of "chloroacetophenone,"
as MACE is correctly described in a December, 1967, release of the PHS
National Clearinghouse for Poison Control Centers.

     Afficianados of chemical warfare will immediately recognize the 
compound as a common tear gas, "CN" (which is even more confusing,
for it has nothing to do with the very poisonous cyanides).

     MACE, then, turns out to be a dilute solution of CN tear gas in
what the manufacturer calls a "proprietory (sic) blend of synergistic
carriers," and packaged in an aerosol spray can.

     This weapon has been widely advertised and officially supported
as a humane alternative to the nightstick and riot gun. There is
nothing new about using tear gas for riot control. Indeed, the
literature of injuries from tear gas bullets and bombs makes these
appear more hazardous than an aerosol can because they may add 
mechanical injury to eyes or skin.

     Practical experience, since about 1920, with pure tear gas 
supports the general claim that "CN" does little permanent damage 
compared to its immediate incapacitating effects. If true Mace would 
indeed be an ideal weapon for riot control and for bank robbers.

     Unfortunately, there has been almost nothing published to 
indicate that MACE, which is more than pure tear gas, has been 
systematically tested along the lines that would be required of the 
blandest new drug, much less one whose use depended on its being a very
powerful irritant.  So far, the FDA has ignored the whole question, 
despite demands by a number of physicians that "CN" be treated as a 
presciption drug.

     Theirs may be an extreme and socially unproductive position. 
Nevertheless, the possibility of chemical injury by MACE deserves
much more serious attention if it is to keep a useful place in the
police armory.

     Serious eye injuries and skin burns have, in fact, been attributed
to MACE by a San Francisco ophthalmologist, Dr. Lawrence Rose.
For the most part, these can be blamed on a gross misuse of the 
product at close quarters, the suspect being drenched during and after
arrest. But such a casual use of MACE can be traced to propaganda
that it can do no permanent harm, that it is the "rubber hose" of
1968, leaving no marks on the victim.

     If MACE is to have the community's approbation, its
distribution must be coupled with informed instruction.

     The unregulated distribution of "CN" opens the door to many
abuses apart from its obvious exploitation by robbers as well as cops.
There is no guarantee that a can of MACE will have the expected 
composition, with pure ingredients.

     Just because it may be used in anger, such a product should be
very carefully supervised.  Impurities, or products of chemical aging
or decomposition, or the "synergistic carriers," could do a great deal
of hardly intended mischief if the user believes he can do no 
"permanent harm."  Furthermore, we know virtually nothing about the 
biochemistry of action of pure chloroacetophenone, and less about how it
will work in the field and in combination with other solvents.

     If Dr. Rose's suspicions about the toxicity of inhaled MACE are
correct, there will be some fatalities if it has  widespread use this
year.  And the victims will not be the real troublemakers; they will
be older and quieter demonstrators with slower feet and weakened
lungs.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------